Sorry I made an error in the link text but it works , so I await your valued comment and rating.

Wilhelmus

Dear Ralph,

I found the idea of classifying the existing world (the material world as well as the knowledge) interesting and potentially helpful. Sometimes good analogies have far reaching consequences.

But I don't understand all your points

"Our universe requires two separate theories to describe its behavior. The Theory of Relativity describes the hardware; Quantum Theory describes the software."

I would say that the hardware of the universe has more to do with the qubits (atoms, theis spins, polarization states of light...) and we need quantum theory here. May be you have in mind observer participancy when you think qubits as software?

Then

"The answer is surprisingly simple. The universe uses three classes of objects as its Information Transformers: stars, living things, and human beings. Stars transform Information from Matter into Light and Energy, living things transform it into Intelligence, and human beings transform it into Consciousness."

To me this distinction is very artificial, living things have much to do with human beings in managing the material world.

On the other hand, I perfectly agree that

"Hardware is needed for parts; software for instructions. But a self-synthesized information system has additional requirements. Its software must be able to operate the hardware as well as instruct the system on how to create itself."

I find it a good translation of 'observer participancy' coined by Wheeler.

In my essay, I treat 'observer participancy' in a different way

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

Best regards,

Michel

Dear Sir,

The fundamental assumption in your essay is that the whole is a sum of its parts. In a self-synthesized information system, there are additional requirements, but the same basic principle holds. But does nature operate in that way? A mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is not water. All parts of a human body hold as long as we breathe. Once that stops, the parts of the body decompose and disintegrate. Reproduction is not the same as "creates its own software". The offspring is another hardware with software embedded in it. Communication requires a sender and a receiver. Hence it cannot be a self-synthesized information system. Hardware, software and energy are not enough to run a system. Who does the programming? Can we program it to create ourselves? Even if it is possible to create a replica, will it not be limited by our knowledge, making us omniscient, which we certainly are not? After all, computers are GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. There must be an operator to not only to run the system, but also feed data and use the information to achieve tasks outside the system. "If a system's parts are physically separated", where does it leave humans? All our body parts are physically joined. We are not like solar system.

How can "Almost everything about our universe indicates that it is indeed an information system?" Information must be about something. The universe is that something. How can anything be made out of information? Is it physics or fantasy?

Reards,

basudeba

    Ralph,

    Your summary:

    "Furthermore, if I understand your position correctly, there is also a similarity between your findings regarding selection/non-selection events and the Information Field of Intelligence and that is this: the Information Field of Intelligence includes all possibilities of selection. Collapse of the wave function occurs when a selection is made, but the un-selected choices are, in essence, all else."

    I find to be very much in keeping with the findings obtained in the Tempt Destiny experiment. Could you please provide me with your email address for further inquiry? My email address is msm@physicsofdestiny.com

    Thanks,

    Manuel

    Dear All,

    It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

    iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.

    One of the sub series is always defined by the equation

    Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

    where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

    the second sub series is always defined by the equation

    Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2

    where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

    Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.

    Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation

    Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

    where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i

    Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".

    Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.

    Examples

    starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

    where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5

    -27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5

    Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

    where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

    0 1 2 5 13 34 ...

    Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2

    where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

    0 1 3 8 21 55 ...

    Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

    0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)

    The above equations hold true for any value of i, again confirming the singularity of i.

    As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, a fellow author in this contest, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.

    d-super.pdf"> The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstring-theory](https://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behin

    d-super.pdf)

    Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.

    I have put forth the absolute truth in the Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.

    I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.

    All this started with a simple question, who am I?

    I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.

    I super positioned my self or I to be me.

    I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.

    I am phi, zero = I = infinity

    I am human and I is GOD.

    Love,

    Sridattadev.

    Hi Wilhelmus,

    Thank you so much for taking the time to read this essay and I appreciate the fact that you don't mind considering other people's ideas that are different. I'll be reading and rating your essay in just a few minutes.

    I also wanted to clarify something that you mentioned, and I really appreciate that you pointed it out, because I can see where the word(s) I chose could be interpreted to mean something other than the meaning I'm actually trying to convey.

    You mentioned that I am, "adding two senses : happiness and pain, but I think that these two are 'feelings' and not senses, because the 5 senses are the instrumentation of the human being to become aware and conscious."

    I agree with you that happiness and pain (at least emotional pain) are 'feelings' and not senses, and I also agree that the 5 senses are the instrumentation of the human being to become aware and conscious. What I mean to say is that the instrumentation we use to physically perceive the environment include the physical perception of pleasure and pain in addition to that sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell. These two additional 'senses' are coupled with the other 5 senses in order to support our survival, i.e. indicate to us what we need to seek versus avoid. Without, for example, the ability to perceive pain, our sense of touch wouldn't indicate to us whether something was too hot or sharp, etc. Without the distinction of pleasure/pain perception, we would still be able to smell and taste things, but would not be able to determine what to seek or avoid in terms of what we ate - fresh versus spoiled foods, etc.

    So thank you for your comments and in particular, your interpretation. I can see how you interpreted what I wrote in the manner you did; I need to find a way to try and make the point I wish to convey more clear.

    I have already read your essay and will be rating and commenting on it right now. I found it very interesting and thought you made several excellent points and observations.

    As an aside, I was married to a lady named Corinne for 30 years. We married in 1979 - in France. (She was a French foreign exchange student when we met). We have 3 wonderful grown sons and a grown daughter. Small world.

    Best to you,

    Ralph

    Ralph,

    Your summary, "...if I understand your position correctly, there is also a similarity between your findings regarding selection/non-selection events and the Information Field of Intelligence and that is this: the Information Field of Intelligence includes all possibilities of selection. Collapse of the wave function occurs when a selection is made, but the un-selected choices are, in essence, all else." is pretty much dead-on.

    BTW - I have some other questions to run by you via email if I may. You can contact me at msm@physicsofdestiny.com

    Regards,

    Manuel

    Dear Ralph,

    Thank you for your appreciation, you are totally right that in quantum theory scientists neglected the plan and that much more can be gained by looking at the problem as a whole. Your idea of harware/software somehow fits my approach. the dessins are the plans. More to come soon.

    I will also rate your essay so that it becomes more visible.

    Best regards,

    Michel

    Dear Ralph

    Compliments for your successful essay, which is full of enthusiasm and positive thinking.

    With my best regards and compliments

    Mauro

    Dear Ralph,

    Thanks for your kind compliments on my essay and I have down loaded your essay and going to post my comments in your thread shortly. I will rate it too accordingly.

    Sincerely,

    Sreenath

      Basudeba,

      Thanks for your comment that has been ignored by the author. I will not read his essay. Enthusiasm and positive thinking are perhaps not a sufficient basis for science.

      Eckard

      Dear Ralph,

      I am, too, sorry to have missed reading your logically consistent essay for so long. Yours is one of the few essays that are consistent in their approach from the first sentence to the last one. You have clear vision of what you want to say when you start your essay with the quotation of Wheeler, "...attempt to build everything on the foundation of some 'grand unified field theory' . . . Hope to derive that theory by way of one or another plausible line of reasoning". Accordingly you have devised the concept of "self-synthesized information system" consisting of 'hardware' and 'software'; in which both influence each other and are inter dependent. Where hardware represents the 'physics' of the world in the form of matter and energy, and software represents biological part of the world in the form of mind and its intellect. So you have derived your theory based on the concept of 'self-synthesized information system' there by trying to bridge the gap between physics and biology, and by fulfilling the dream of Wheeler by realizing the sort of relationship that exists between It and Bit. Then you have defined 'information' as 'everything' and also with 'universal substance' from which everything 'else' is made; there by giving primary importance to Bit over It. Here I want to tell you that, when you have defined information as universal substance, it is not necessary to define it as everything and also delete the word 'else' from the sentence; so now you define information as 'universal substance from which everything is made'.

      Next, coming to your treatment of Life, you have defined a living thing as "A living thing has a unique internal decision-maker and an internal sense of separation from its environment; an inanimate object does not". In this definition the latter part of the sentence, that is, 'an inanimate object does not' is not necessary as it is not included in the definition of a living thing; so define a living thing as "A living thing has a unique internal decision-maker and an internal sense of separation from its environment". But to the question does this definition cover up all aspects of a living thing? You have, I think, given an elaborate explanation and it appears to be a fantastic conception. I was amazed to see your concept of "Mental Network" resembling my concept of "Biological Network". We both together can work on this aspect to elaborate more regarding their implication. It is here that we both have many points in common.

      Thank you very much for producing such an innovative essay with full of insightful themes. Accordingly I will rate it with maximum possible score. Keep in touch with me in future too.

      Best of luck,

      Sreenath

      Dear Sreenath,

      I am grateful you took the opportunity to read my essay and saw the remarkable parallels between your "Biological Network" and the "Mental Network." I was so impressed with your logic, and was excited to find someone else who was thinking along the same lines.

      Also, thank you for pointing out that the extraneous words I used in my definitions, particularly the 'else' with regard to 'universal substance.' I can see that using 'else' alters the meaning I intended to convey. (And, my mother was an English teacher!)

      I sincerely appreciate your kind remarks, Sreenath. As a non-scientist, it means a lot to me that someone of your educational background, interests, and intelligence would take the time to really read what I wrote and offer such positive, constructive feedback. I'm so glad I came across your essay. (I'm even more impressed with how articulate and well-written your essay is, if English is a 2nd language for you . . .)

      Thank you, Sreenath. I look forward to corresponding with you in the future. I've already found you on 'Research Gate' and will look into joining right away and connecting with you there.

      Best,

      Ralph

      Dear Ralp,

      Brilliant essay! I rated it the highest possible rating. I enjoyed very much reading it. Succinct but comprehensive! Remarkable piece of work. Please comment and rate my essay Child of Qbit in time. In this essay, i believe KQID realized Wheeler's dream using different language than yours that the origin of Existence is so shockingly simple that it is under our nose all along. KQID: To rephrase Pythagoras: All things are one Qbit. This bit is Planck's matrix of all matter and Maxwell 's nfinite being with infinite memory storage. In short, Qbit is Existence and Existence is Qbit. This Qbits A S = E = ψI(CTE) projects its computed Einstein coordinates(numbers) onto the 2D screen Minkowski Null Geodesics in the zeroth dimension that instantaneously project these coordinates into the bulk υτ(iLx,y,x, Lm). Then Existence exist as we perceive it to be as is. You wrote: "...all human beings are meant to understand, awaken to, and embrace the purpose of our existence." Similarly, in KQID, Existence is our Ancestor Qbit's way to experience, to walk, talk and make love.

      Live long and prosper,

      Leo KoGuan

      Dear Walker,

      You are correct,

      I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies. FQXi should have issued a notification that you have replied....

      It was my proposition, it was not an inference to your essay. What I mean is that we should be more close experimental results for our propositions.

      I think we form a picture of anything in our mind, and keep them in our memories. We communicate about that picture to others, which we call information. When we die we loose all these pictures and memories.

      Now in this context, can we create material from information...?

      You can discuss with me later after this contest closes also.

      Best

      =snp

      snp.gupta@gmail.com

      Dear Ralph,

      Thanks for your comments on my blog. I had earlier rated your essay a 7. I didn't know from your bio that you were an attorney because I needed advice on use of words like *prima facie* and *res ipsa loquitur*, etc.

      I recall attorneys can usually be the source of great things in physics and who knows what may eventually come out of your nice essay. Edwin Hubble was one.

      Best regards,

      Akinbo

      Dear Ralph,

      Nice essay and some great ideas around information. I like the participatory approach with regard to humans and the computer and Internet analogy. Also the quote that different individuals describe the same event in different ways. Please take a look at my essay, given the time to do so, as it deals with observation too.

      Best wishes,

      Antony

        Thanks Antony,

        I'll read and rate your essay today! Thanks for the kind remarks.

        Best,

        Ralph

        Hi Ralph,

        I've rated your essay now - thanks for reading mine, the kind comments and rating.

        Best wishes,

        Antony